IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 192/10 DATED 02.07.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Purushotham Lal S/o Vagamal, Door NO.676, “E” & “F” Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570023.<br /> (By Sri. M.D., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., NO.618, Chamaraja Double Road, Mysore-570024.<br /> (By Sri. J.S.K., Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 15.05.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 31.05.2010<br /> Date of order : 02.07.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 2 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party that his two wheeler was damaged in the accident and in spite of submission of the claim, opposite party has not paid the amount spent for repairs and also towards the injuries sustained.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party in the version has contended that, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.2,150/- and scrutinizing the bills, claim was settled at Rs.2,090/-, for which cheque was sent to the complainant, but he refused it. Also, it is stated, towards transportation of the damaged vehicle complainant claimed Rs.1,000/-, but only Rs.300/- as permissible. It is stated, there is no deficiency in service and there is no cause of action.<br /> <br /> 3. In support of his claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, Divisional Manager of the opposite party has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have to consider whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. We do not wish to narrate the admitted facts. The complainant has claimed in all Rs.3,995/-, towards repairing the damaged two wheeler in the accident, where as the surveyor of the opposite party has assessed the loss at Rs.2,150/-. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the opposite party that, the surveyor has assessed the loss taking into consideration of the depreciation. Copy of the report of the surveyor is on record. Though the complainant has produced certain receipts in support of his claim, has not established that, the survey report is incorrect. Under the circumstances, taking into consideration of the depreciation, the loss assessed by the surveyor shall have to be accepted.<br /> <br /> 7. The main contention of the opposite party is that, there is no repudiation of the claim or there is no cause of action and hence, complaint is not maintainable. It is true, as contended for the opposite party, a cheque was sent to the complainant, which has been refused. But, it is relevant to note that, the complainant did not accept the loss assessed or the amount offered and hence, he has refused the said cheque. In addition to it, it may be noted that, even according to the terms of the policy, towards removal of the damaged vehicle to the garage, a sum of Rs.300/- has to be allowed. In the case on hand, claim of Rs.1,000/- in this regard has been repudiated contending that, no receipt was produced. But, at least the opposite party could have paid Rs.300/-, as per the terms of the policy. Hence, the contention that there is no cause of action, cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 8. As rightly contended by the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for any amount in respect of personal injuries before this Forum.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony etc.,. The total amount claimed is not substantiated by any evidence. Hence, we are of the opinion that, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,150/-, the loss assessed by the surveyor and a sum of Rs.300/- towards transporting the vehicle from the accident spot to the garage and a sum of Rs.1,500/- compensation towards mental agony and inconvenience caused. Accordingly, following order.<br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,450/-, towards the loss assessed the complainant in respect of damage caused to the vehicle, with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of the claim (03.03.2010), within a month from the date of the order.<br /> 3. Further, opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation to the complainant, towards mental agony and inconvenience caused within a month from the date of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 4. Also, opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant, towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 2nd July 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />